Talk:Battle of Broken Hill

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Broken Hill article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Australia: New South Wales / Crime / History Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Battle of Broken Hill is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: South Pacific / World War I Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	World War I task force

Letter from the Ottoman Sultan[edit]

I'm not sure of the rules here, but in the "Aftermath" section this article refers to a letter "from the Ottoman Sultan" being considered a forgery by Turkish sources, but there is no mention of a letter from the Ottoman Sultan anywhere else in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:2AF:DA04:C82D:9263:E623:1BE8 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is something relevant.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost four years later and this is still not clear. "The attackers left notes connecting their actions to the hostilities between the Ottoman and British Empires, which had been officially declared in October 1914. Believing he would be killed, Gool Mahomed left a letter in his waist-belt which stated that he was a subject of the Ottoman Sultan and that, "I must kill you and give my life for my faith, Allāhu Akbar." Mullah Abdullah said in his last letter that he was dying for his faith and in obedience to the order of the Sultan, "but owing to my grudge against Chief Sanitary Inspector Brosnan it was my intention to kill him first."[10] Turkish sources claim that the letter from the Ottoman Sultan was a forgery, and that the Turkish flag found with the perpetrators was planted. It is claimed that the incident was attributed to Turks in order to rally the Australian public for the war." If the letter from the Ottoman Sultan refers to the letter in Gool's belt, then the first sentence needs to be rephrased. As presently written, it implies that this letter was written by Gool himself. Not to mention the confusing reference to him as Gool Mahomed, when he was previously identified as Mahommed Gool. Both the order of the names and the spelling are different. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Pakistan as their origin to create perception[edit]

It seems very convenient for naming Pakistan as the Modern day representation of the people. Its creating negative perception when it is not required and only naming British India would suffice. -- 05:07, 14 January 2019 MobyQ